Facts of the case:

The Appellant, R. G. Anand, was an architect, as well as a playwright, dramatist and producer. He wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’ in 1953. The play ran successfully and was re-staged in 1954, 1955 and in 1956. Aware of the interest of the appellant in filming the play, in view of its increasing popularity, the second Respondents, Mr Mohan Sehgal, contacted the appellant.

During the Appellant’s meeting with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the Appellant narrated the entire play ‘Hum Hindustani’ to them. Consequently, in January 1955, the Appellant had elaborate discussions regarding filming the play. However, no further communication was made to the Appellant post the discussions.

In May 1955, the Respondents started to make a film called ‘New Delhi’, which, the Appellant believed, was based on his play. The Respondents, however, assured him that it was not so. In September 1956, the movie was released and after viewing it, the Appellant filed a suit for infringement of his copyright in his play ‘Hum Hindustani’. He claimed for damages, the account of profits and a permanent injunction against the Respondents, thus restraining them from exhibiting the movie any further.

The Appellant filed this suit at the District Court, and the learned trial judge held, that the movie ‘New Delhi’ made by the Respondents does not infringe the copyright of the plaintiff. On further appeal, the Delhi High Court upheld the judgment of the District Court. Thereafter, the Appellant appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court was filed at the Supreme Court.

Issue of the case:

The case had a very simple issue, as to whether or not the production, distribution and exhibition of the film ‘New Delhi’ made by the Respondents are in infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play, ‘Hum Hindustani’?

The rule of law that stands in such cases is that if there is any substantial resemblance between the original work and the alleged copy (the play and the movie here respectively) in terms of scenes, incidents and treatment, and the similarity between the two is so much that a reasonable man would consider the ‘copy’ to be more or less an imitation of the original, an infringement of copyright is said to have taken place.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant:

• Anand, the Appellant, argued that the Respondents were fully aware of each and every theme and intricacy of his play. They had even had detailed discussions upon the same.
• There were various uncanny similarities between the play and the movie, with regards to its main theme of provincialism, characterization and overall situations.
• He pleaded that he was the rightful owner of the copyright in the play "Hum Hindustani" and that his right had been violated by the Respondents.

The Delhi High court recognized the copyright of the plaintiff under the Copyright Act, 1911.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:

• Deluxe Films and others argued that there exist a number of dissimilarities between the play and the movie, with respect to the spirit and the content and hence there is no infringement of copyright.
• The Respondents did make the movie based upon the theme of ‘provincialism’ but with a different climax, story, theme and characterisation and treatment.

Judgment and Observations made by the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the film made by the Respondents cannot be said to be a substantial copy of the play. Hence, the Respondents cannot be held to have committed an act of piracy. There were differences in the play and the movie, in terms of story, theme, characterization and climaxes. Further, the Court held that a copyright cannot be acquired for an idea; the idea being provincialism in this case. Copyright offers protection only to the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. The allegation by Anand that the Respondents violated his copyright by copying his 'idea' was held to be invalid.

Moreover, the Appellant could not prove that the Respondents had committed a counterfeit imitation of his play. Where similarities between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy are so many, and the similarities between the two works are not coincidental, a reasonable inference of counterfeit imitation can be drawn. The Court held that a case for the infringement may be made out only when such an infringement may be recognizable by a reasonable person. In this case, the Court observed, that no prudent man could get an impression that the film appears to be a copy of the original play. Hence, the Supreme Court did not find any violation of copyright and dismissed the appeal.

The fundamental principles established in this case, with regard to the infringement of copyright in cases of substantial similarity became landmarked in the country's IPR law.